Conti update article: "Watchtower Loses Conti Appeal - But Fights On"

by cedars 147 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  cedars

  Scott77

  With the exception of Mr. 144001 and few ones, I highly doubt everyone on this site understand what JNOV means or stand for.

  Well hopefully they'll have an idea what it means after reading the article, because I inserted a brief new paragraph explaining what has happened and what the acronym "JNOV" stands for.

  I agree that the article needs to be in lay-persons' language, and ironically I had another poster on this thread telling me to dumb down a certain word when I first posted it! However, with such an important case I also feel I would rather explain thing 100% accurately, and if someone doesn't understand a certain expression they can always ask me or do some research.

  I guess it's a delicate balancing act, this whole writing thing!

  Cedars
• 

  Scott77

  	I guess it's a delicate balancing act, this whole writing thing!
  	cedars

  With the above statement, I could not agree any more. Kudos Mr. cedars. Many ways to go.

  Scott77
• 

  144001

  <<<< I think, your headline, 'Conti update article: "Watchtower Loses Conti Appeal - But Fights On"' was partially correct in that the Watchtower 'won' some part of appeal [reduction of monetary award] but not all [dismissal of the entire case on technicalities. Mr. 144001 could have acknowledged this instead of whole sale dismissal of the headline as misleading >>>>

  It wasn't even partially correct, since no appeals whatsoever have been heard by any court in this case. Before you express opinions on matters such as this one, it might be helpful for you to educate yourself about what is at issue before posting. The headline was not only misleading, it was blatantly false, and Cedars did the right thing by fixing it. Do you place any value on credibility? Most people do . . .

  <<<< With the exception of Mr. 144001 and few ones, I highly doubt everyone on this site understand what JNOV means or stand for. Your presentation was in the ordinary, layman language. Think of a conclusion of a court case from a lower court. Any movement to higher next court would be considered a kind of appeal. Really does it says JNOV.>>>>

  "Movement to [a] higher next court" is an appeal. A motion for JNOV is not an appeal, and is not heard by a "higher next court." A motion for JNOV is heard by the same trial court that heard the trial, and motions for JNOV are denied in the substantial majority of cases.

  Apparently you believe it's ok to make false statements on this site since you assume that most people here are too stupid to know better. The WTBTS has a similar philosophy . . .
• 

  cedars

  144001

  Apparently you believe it's ok to make false statements on this site since you assume that most people here are too stupid to know better. The WTBTS has a similar philosophy . . .

  Woah 144001, that's a bit strong don't you think? Surely there's no need to be going over this. You noticed a mistake (which I appreciate), I fixed it, not everyone thinks it's a big deal but the important thing is that the article is now accurate, thanks to you. Do we really need to start throwing mud around, and comparing people with the Society?

  Cedars
• 

  144001

  Cedars,

  Take another look at this:

  <<<< With the exception of Mr. 144001 and few ones, I highly doubt everyone on this site understand what JNOV means or stand for.>>>>

  When someone describes the vast majority of folks on this site as being ignorant, I will respond.

  Scott came on to this thread entirely ignorant of the subject matter being discussed, and chose to level criticism at me, based on his own ignorance of the subject matter. He also advocated leaving a false statement in your article. I stand by my response and make no apologies for it.
• 

  cedars

  144001

  I stand by my response and make no apologies for it.

  I'm not asking you to apologise. You can say what you want on here - which is precisely my point. I just don't see the need for animosity. You may do what you want with my reaction.

  When someone describes the vast majority of folks on this site as being ignorant, I will respond.

  I don't think that's what Scott was saying at all. Just because someone doesn't know what "JNOV" means doesn't make them ignorant in all respects. Scott was offering an opinion which may or may not be accurate. Whether it is or not is for each one to judge. He's certainly entitled to his opinion just as you are, but you seem to overlook this. A discussion forum such as this one draws a wealth of opinions, and it's all too easy to start pointing fingers once we hear an opinion we don't like. I know I've been guilty of this at times.

  It certainly doesn't make him akin to the Watchtower to assume that the majority may not know what JNOV is, or that these might wrongly assume JNOV to be the same as an appeal.

  I just don't see the reason for pointing fingers. We're all on the same side. And, as I said, the important thing is that the article is now accurate (thanks to you). Why can't we focus on the common enemy in all of this?

  Cedars
• 

  Tylinbrando

  I personally highly respect Cedars for his ability to clearly communicate through his writing what is at the forefront of the Conti Case and other issues. I am also impressed by his humility and candor. I have a very limited knowledge of court proceeding but would venture to guess through my own personal experience with such that I am more knowledgeable than the average reader. Many of the well documented matters concerning this case have left me with many questions specifically in regards to the Appeal process and how it will or has played out.

  144,001, helped to clear many of those issues up for me personally by at least voicing his observations and knowledge about the matter here. Im certain I am not the only one to be greatful to both of you for attempting to be most accurate and effective in the dissemination of information.

  The propensity to argue over anything is a natural course it seems in this forum. It is a diservice to the real and more important issues that are coming forth through an interchange of information and observation.

  I personally have looked through hundreds of posts by Cedars and 144,001. I am certainly grateful for the intelligence and perspectives that you each are capable of bringing, and the education that I have been able to gleen from it.
• 

  cedars

  wannabefree

  Thanks again and keep up the great work!

  Thanks for that. Sometimes it feels more like work than at other times!

  I must say, after reviewing your bantering back and forth with "Rob" on this article at your website, I really can't see where he disagrees with you

  Ah, banter - don't you just love it?!

  Yes, Rob is a strange one. I can't quite figure him out. On the one hand he voiced quite a bit of agreement that things need to change, but on the other hand I do think he expresses quite a bit of approval for the "justice" afforded by the two witness rule - which is strange because he claims he doesn't believe the bible to be practical. He also insists that a criminal conviction (or even a simple police investigation) is admissable as evidence for disfellowshipping someone, but anyone who knows anything about judicial procedure knows that this is most certainly not the case - either in writing or in practice.

  I asked him if he'd ever been an elder to make such strong (and obviously wrong) assertions, but he refused to answer.

  Cedars
• 

  cedars

  Tylinbrando

  Thanks for those sentiments.

  Many of the well documented matters concerning this case have left me with many questions specifically in regards to the Appeal process and how it will or has played out.

  Yes, I too still have many questions about the case, despite having written so extensively on the subject. I'm hoping all of these questions will be answered in the fullness of time as fresh details come to light. I have reason to believe that this case will gain an increasing amount of exposure as it progresses, which will hopefully shed light on certain aspects that currently confuse me.

  144,001, helped to clear many of those issues up for me personally by at least voicing his observations and knowledge about the matter here. Im certain I am not the only one to be greatful to both of you for attempting to be most accurate and effective in the dissemination of information.

  It is in everyone's interests for this information to be as factual as possible. I personally feel it would be a huge waste of my own time to spend hours writing things that aren't true in an attempt to criticize the Watchtower for this exact same practice. It would be both hypocritical and unproductive. Also, I'm not as knowledgeable in many areas as I would like to be, so I appreciate it when I receive the help of others in correcting any mistakes, even though I sometimes get frustrated at myself for making these errors in the first place.

  Cedars
• 

  mP

  Band:

  Believe it or not, there is a field of law called remedies. I would a judge ordering the WT to apologize, change their policy, and publicize the new policy. It is much more difficult to enforce such a remedy as opposed to collecting monetary damages.

  mP

  Of course but she could try, it doesnt hurt to try...SOmeone has to try and so far she has tried and fought admirably aganst amazing odds. This would be a major nail in the coffin for them and would hurt them much more than $.